- (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No 6983 of 2012 order dated 26th March, 2015 whereby, the petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed and hence, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Factual Matrix Notice inviting tender was floated by the respondent-State on 18th August, 2012 for the construction work of a building at Sahebganj. It appears that the appellant and other bidders had filled up the tender and ultimately, the appellant was found lowest one. The document was to be executed on or before 18th October, 2012. It appears that the work place was not suitable due to water logging and a letter was written by the appellant for extension of execution of the documents. The last date for execution of the documents was extended up to 17th October, 2012. A letter was written by this appellant dated 26th October, 2012 for further extension of time for execution of the documents. This letter was also accepted with reasons by the respondent State and the Chief Engineer extended the time limit vide letter dated 1st November, 2012 upto 10th November, 2012. Ignoring this letter dated 1st November, 2012 of the Chief Engineer, extending the time to execute the documents upto 10th November, 2012, the then Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 1st November, 2012 cancelling the work allotment to this appellant. Thus, ignoring the letter of the Chief Engineer because of the communication gap between the Chief Engineer and the Deputy Commissioner of the District Sahebganj the whole difficulty has arisen. The Chief Engineer extended the time limit whereas the Deputy Commissioner, District Sahebganj cancelled the contract. It appears that thereafter, the contract was given to respondent no. 5 vide order dated 1st November, 2012 and by now, most of the work has been completed by respondents no.5. Now restricting his arguments for return of earnest money of Rs. 2,43,000/- so that money can be returned and in future also he can participate in the tender process of the Government, this appellant preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6983 of 2012. The same has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26th March, 2015 and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner.
(3.) Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellant: Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Chief Engineer of the State of Jharkhand had extended the time limit for execution of the documents of the allotted work upto 10th November, 2012 in pursuance of the letter written by this appellant dated 26 October, 2012 as the execution of the work was not possible due to water logging at the work place. This reason was accepted. The Chief Engineer, who is a Technical person, knows the difficulties of the contractor whereas, the Deputy Commissioner of Sahebganj without knowing the technical aspect of the matter cancelled the contract. This might be due to communication gap between the Chief Engineer at State Level and Deputy Commissioner at District level and therefore, earnest money deposited by this appellant cannot be forfeited by the State which is at Rs. 2,43,000/- and same may kindly be refunded and simultaneously, this appellant thereby will be capable of participating in any tender process in future. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that in fact no fault lies on the part of the appellant. Water logging was not because of this appellant at the work place. This reason was accepted by the technical high ranking administrative officer of the State viz. Chief Engineer and everything was in the black and white from the side of this appellant. Previously also, a letter was written and second time on 26th October, 2012 another letter was written. This is the first time delay which has been caused by this appellant due to water logging at the work place otherwise, in past there was no such incident happened by this appellant. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No 6983 of 2012 dated 26th March, 2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside.;